IT’S NOT ALL MONEY, POLITICS, AND SEX?

Genetically speaking, women should be attracted to men who can bring home the bacon, right? I mean, the evolutionists would say this. When our genes were selected, there was not all that much food to go around. Men were hunter/gatherers, while women stayed home, bore and raised the children. The more the hunters killed or the more the  gatherers gathered, the more food for the female mate and the offspring. The more food, the longer life and better health. The longer life and better health, the more offspring. The more offspring, the more the basic human drives of survival and reproduction could be fulfilled. As fulfilling the basic drives feels good, the more women would find good hunters and good gatherers attractive and want to mate/have offspring with them–and like them.

Of course, good hunters/gatherers knew this and could thus choose women who would be good mothers for their children. That is, it worked both ways. In the end, the genes of both good hunters/gatherers and good mothers became more numerous in the population. That’s how evolution is explained.

So, the good hunter/gatherers would have more sex than the bad ones–because they were more attractive to women. In an uncivilized world, where there are few rules about mating/marriage, the really good hunter/gatherers would have more than one woman, because those second in line would be confident these guys could provide for them and their offspring, too.

It isn’t hard to see how this translates into civilized society. In civilized society, what is hunted and gathered is not so much kill or. . .whatever it is that gatherers gather. Instead it is money. It is money, because one can buy what hunters kill and  gatherers gather. Same thing. Thus, a man who earned more money would be as attractive as a good hunter/gatherer.

But wait. Not so fast. We all know there are other things besides money that are, at the most basic level, attractive to women. Strong men or physically well built men are also attractive at this basic level, likely because these are characteristics of good hunter/gatherers–and also of good hunter/gatherers who can protect their bounty from those inferior hunter/gatherers who might steal their prey or gathering before it can be eaten by the women and offspring.

OK. Well, what about good looking. . .faces. Well, faces don’t correlate with hunting or gathering, so what’s a good looking face in one culture is not the same in another. That is, the element of sexual attractiveness that relates to good looking faces is learned, not genetic.

OK. OK. Now, what about other fundamental, shall I say genetic, aspects of sexual attractiveness. Well, in many species, the attractive male is the dominant one. In many such species, he becomes the only one available to the pack of females. To be dominant over other males, then, is selected for, evolutionarily. That is what drives many males in a variety of species, even when it no longer is selected for, or at least highly selected for. That is, because genes leading to dominant behavior are widespread in a variety of species, dominant behavior persists.

OK. But what males are so dominant they eliminate the other males and have the rest of the female herd/harem for themselves? Not many. Rather, dominant male behavior involves having males who do their bidding, so that together the group can dominate, take over neighboring fertile ground from other groups, etc.

But how is this relevant today? Well, leaders of men are attractive to women. Not true, you say. Well, the captain of the football team is more attractive to women than the bench  rider. Sorry, bench riders. Leaders become attractive, because the characteristics of leadership are related to the characteristics of good hunter/gatherers. In the same way that currently meaningless characteristics like good biceps and pecs are meaningless genetically, they still are attractive at a very basic level. Other characteristics associated with good hunting/gathering/loot-protecting males are, too, and one big one is leadership.

Now, is there any question why men, traditionally at least, have been drawn to politics?

If you understood this post, you guessed the answer even before the question, right?

So, is it all money, politics, and sex? No. it is money and sex, and it is politics and sex. You don’t have to be rich to attract women. You could be a political leader, instead.

Political commentators say it’s power that drives men to enter politics. Men who enter politics say it’s service. I say it’s much deeper. It’s the fundamental drive to be attractive!

In another post, I’ll talk about what drives women to enter politics.